saddam like a pearl child raised by wolves. it was cruel and unusual treatment of bradley manning, whatever his verdict turned out to be. i his a verdict turned out to be. that was, i cannot understand it, and i do not know why that have been. i think it was a marine procedure rather than government edict. >> sir? >> my name is michael chopra. i am a former student of prof. rove's, -- professor rose. i am wondering if that change how you reported. >> yes, it was kind of a gauntlet thrown down by ira glass, who came on and said, "npr is not defending itself

against this canard. it is just not true. why do you not find out?" we went through. we have a lot of people who were critical of npr but were listeners. most people to criticize it had never heard it. it was just a word on fox news. they never listen to it. we got several listeners who were not supporters. they like to the content, but they were very biased, so we took apart their anecdotal experiences, and we examine them closely for some clues, and then we did some quantitative stock based on pew and other research outlets you had attempted to evaluate media, and ira said it

changed the way that he was reporting, but i cannot say it changed mine. i know that will in dear me to all of our critics, but we try to disclose exactly who we are in a way that npr as a general rule does not. they like to their hosts to be uninflected in their presentation, and we made a conscious choice, bob and i did, that if we were going to criticize people for not disclosing things, then we would try to be open books, and even as open books, we would allow ourselves to be corrected and be wrong on the air, especially when we thought it was instructive. if i say a wrong number, and he

says, "actually, it is 24," and i had said 22. that kind of correction is useful. illustrative mistakes we will leave on the air. like the one you mentioned with sununu. we will let people accept us on the terms that we provide. we are honest. i think, and this is a slight digression, but i really do think it does come back to your question. you mentioned walter cronkite. back in the 1970's, there was some poll where he was voted the most trusted man in america. there was a similar poll done of people on the internet, and the most trusted man in america was jon stewart, so the question is

why, and i think it is because he is an open book. it is no longer -- it no longer pertains to be some person speaking from some great cloud like fortressing down to the people below. the playing field has been leveled, whether me and the media like it or not, so it does not change substantially how i would report, because i've always tried to apply a fairness and balance to our discussion, and i have never tried to pretend that i do not have an opinion about it. >> is there any journalism on television that follows a similar kind of approach to what you are doing? because the cable networks, msnbc, you know what you are watching is going to be -- of course, they do not do much reporting. it is all talking heads.

fox does not do much reporting. it is all talking heads, but then there are the problems that cnn is facing. they do journalism, and they are in big trouble. >> they have not done journalism in a long time, at least not the domestic cnn. international's cnn is quite good. the domestic cnn has really gone for a lot of bells and whistles, and i cannot say that they are head and shoulders above the rest. nbc at least has the power of nbc behind it. cnn's sometimes does inspiring work. it is still very good sometimes, but, you know, it is something to do that kind of work. on broadcast? >> yes. >> the show that we get most often likened to for better or worse is the daily show.

>> which is a high honor. >> which is a high honor, but our intent is quite different, but it is, it pays a wise or with tone or something, it just reminds people of the daily show. if you have not heard it, you are not going to be laughing out loud. >> given the fact that you are open about having the tone, deface any issues -- well, npr is just a distribution network for you. >> they have problems with it. they have had problems with it. they are kind of used to it now. in the first few years, there would be some scoring. there would be occasional flings that would create some discomfort. in all honesty, i think that the entire media landscape has

shifted in a way that we do not stand out as much like we used to. npr, look. npr is a fantastic news organization, but it has a style. it has a cave-ins, but it is not our style, and it is not our cave-ins. >> you began working there in 1988? >> 1987. i was an editor on a show, and then i was an editor on "all things considered." >> two voices on npr. can you talk about how they schooled you in that cave-ins? what is the npr voice speak? >> well, for one thing, you've lived your soft palate. i will tell you how that sounds. now, sitting comfortably in my seat, i will say, from new york,

a.m. brooke gladstone. if i was filling in, i would say -- you see, that is much nicer. but it requires putting air over your soft palate, and that is way too much work for me. there is, you know, i studied acting in college, and i remember my first time on the radio, i went to the university of vermont, and there was a shakespeare festival there, and i was doing commercials for the festival, and i would lift my soft palate, and i would say air-conditioned and sporting its new seats, the champlain festival offers its most comfortable season ever. [laughter] there is also the ending phase. let me see if we have got a final sentence here. >> probably not. try the first paragraph. >> she has posted what i think

is one of the most indispensable programs on the air, called appropriately enough -- that kind of thing. [laughter] there is a rhythm. you are going across the country, and you want to hear npr, and there it is. you can hear it right away. but, you know, even the shows that are not produced by nprm. "fresh air" is produced by wnyy. these are nationally produced programs. "car guys" was produced in boston, obviously. "wait, wait, do not tell me is being -- there is a certain civilized quality that happens. >> how did it happen? >> how did it happen?

while. -- wow. i think initially, npr was this hit the property that was truly alternative. it did not have a national desk. it did not have a foreign desk. they did not have a show. they did things to find out about life savers at the north pole, would you get a spark, and they did. >> you do not have to be at the north pole. >> he was at the north pole. it was ira. but slowly, it became a primary source of news, which made it less quirky, but it also maintained the ability to go

longer. i know i was once at a conference, a conference of radio professionals in new orleans, and people were talking about their stories and how they were normally 50 seconds, and someone said, "we have had a real breakthrough at our station, because i get 90 seconds for my story," and i was like the last person, and my average story when i was a correspondent for npr, average story was 7.5 minutes. lots of voices around -- you can slow down a little. you can write a little. you can bring people with you, and you do not have to rank them. >> is that because of no commercials? >> well, i am sure that is part of it. you do not have to be hot, hot, hot. the sounds, the way it is produced, it is not as compressed. if you put compression on a radio signal, you'll have your

-- it will be louder in the center, but you will have less of a dynamic range. this is all pretty wonky, but these are what contributed to that sounds, but mostly, i think it is an intention. we are not yelling at you. you can think. i think that was not a conscious decision. it was part of how it evolves. it did not spring full grown from the head of some executive. it built larger and larger, and it brought and created an aesthetic that went with the form of information provided. >> hmm. >> that is a tough one. >> any questions?

>> i want to know, brooke, if you wanted to get somebody on, and they refused. were they? >> when jonathan klein was -- >> the head of cnn. >> have you heard that? jonathan klein was the head of cnn. he said he was going to change the esthetic of cnn, and it was going to be different, and it was going to be about storytelling, and it was going to be about important issues, and then the runaway bride story happens, and we had an interview to talk to him, and then the runaway bride story happened, and i had to deal with the runaway bride story, and it was in some ways the most hilarious interview i have ever done. he was so mad that cnn will not let anyone, on our show anymore, and fox generally will not let

anybody on our show anymore, and then people who you would think would want to come on, seymour hersh would not come on because he does not want to be edited, and a lot of people who would go on "charlie rose" would not come on our show. hirsch has sometimes, on our show. you know, for a long time, he would not. a lot of people just do not want to be in my hands. i cannot understand that, but that is the way it is. yes, whole networks will not talk to us. they are less likely to talk to was -- they are more likely to turn us down than to talk to us, but somehow, we still fill the hour. >> the book looks fantastic. >> thank you. >> congratulations. >> i indeed my brain in that book. >> it shows. the graphics look really

fabulous. my question to you is a two-part question, which is you are so knowledgeable about the media. what do you think is the most influential media machine right now, and where did you go for what you think is the best information, the most factual information? i think that is something we are all trying to figure out for ourselves. thank you. >> well, here is the thing. what is influential for me is not influential for a whole lot of other people. you know, i live in the bubble of new york, and the bubble of bubbles of brooklyn, and the -- in the bubbliest. i think "the new york times" is very influential, but they are not that influential except for reporting. cable news actually has very few years, relatively speaking, but they inform the mainstream

media. there is so much cross fertilization going on. there is no single -- kierkegaard hated the media and was a media critic, and one thing he objected to more than anything else was the notion that there was a public. that there is no such thing as a public, that is the invention of the media to sell papers. well, you have to sell to someone, and who do you sell to if not the public? so you created, but the public does not exist anymore. glenn beck had so many bestsellers. ann coulter has so many best -- i know you do not need to sell a lot of books to have a best seller. these people -- i remember -- i realized many years ago when the left behind series came out

about the rapture. these were the number one selling books in america, and it was right over my head, and that is when i realized that there is no answer to that question. the second part of its, you know, i like the serendipity engines. i like the browser. i like slaves. i loved arts and letters daily. i like to go to talking points memo. i go to note for political stuff. of course, i read the new york times. i belong to an anthropologist listserv because i care more about neanderthal than anything. [laughter] it is very quirky in strange and i love my twitter feet. it has a lot of people, 20 times more than i do, but it is really

good. >> i want to thank the kierkegaard of our media age for her wealth of knowledge tonight. >> thank you so much. >> thank you, so much. >> and i would like to thank both of you for an entertaining and fun evening. >> let me also note that there is a book signing at the door as you leave. >> and the book is great, and i highly recommend it, and it is funny. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> [speaking foreign language] >> [speaking foreign language] >> [speaking foreign language] >> [speaking foreign language] >> [speaking foreign language]

>> [speaking foreign language] >> [speaking foreign language] >> and a look at capitol hill tonight, where the light is still on in the capitol dome. that means they are still at work, the senate possibly coming in to vote on a deal with the fiscal cliff tonight. although the deadline has passed, congress can still deal with the impact of spending cuts and tax increases that were set to go into effect on january 1. congressional leaders say they want to send legislation to president obama within a day or two, so consumers should not notice any impact. again, that from the associated press. and now, we talk to a reporter

on capitol hill about the actions so far by senate democrats in reaching an agreement. todd is from the takeaway. hours before the deadline, democrats announced a scaled- down version to avoid the so- called fiscal cliff. what are some of the key items in the deal? >> the most important items people will be paying attention to are the income tax rates. you are looking at a tax increase on individuals making more than $400,000 and individuals and families making more than $450,000. president obama campaigned on 250 thousand dollars, and they are redefining what is middle class. now, someone who makes $300,000,

that person is middle class, too, but that is fiscal cliff politics. you have the marginal rates. there are going to be some changes to the estate tax. the estate tax exemption is $5 million at a 30% rate, a 35% rate. that is going up to 40% at $5 million and will be indexed going forward, and there are some changes to dividends. taxes, and one thing that had a lot of people up in arms and took the white house a long time to convince them to go along is a delay in what is known as the sequestered. the spending cuts, the enforcement mechanisms. there is a delay in a sequestered. that means the automatic spending cuts you have heard about, they do not go into effect on january 1 as scheduled, but they do go into effect on march 3.

that is paid for with something on retirement savings. there is a lot of detail. the important thing about that, and why a lot of democrats hate it is because it drops the next sequester cliff, if you will, right on top of another cliff, which is the debt limit, which is the -- like they did last year. there is leverage for more spending cuts. this sort of compounds, and i am sorry to say that we are going to repeat some of this drum in the coming months, so it seems. >> vice-president biden came to meet behind closed doors for over one hour. what did he say to lawmakers? >> he said several things. one, that this was the best deal that they can get. and on the sequestered and i just mentioned, there were a lot of democrats, liberal democrats come up in arms about that, the

president assuring them that the white house has a strategy about how to deal with the debt limit when it comes up, which will now be compounded, as i said, with the expiration in the delay of the sequestered. he said the president reiterated his strong position, that he will not negotiate. that the white house is going to demand new revenues to pay for an increase, to pay for another delay in the sequestered. it will not obis spending cuts the way republicans want, and the president -- a lot of them do not believe the it. the reason why is not because the president is dishonest. because it is going to expire, spending cuts and revenues, it's sort of makes itself part of the

debate. the president can say he is not entertaining this discussion, but if the other side insists it is part of the discussion, it becomes how you teasing out and make republicans responsible, so i think to them coming out, it was not altogether clear how the president and forces this new strategy he has in dealing with the sequester and the debt limit. there were other messages on tax rates, on the farm bill, frankly, which was this milk cliff, but the sequester and tax rates and the estate tax were big parts of it. >> todd is a washington correspondent. think you for your time. >> my pleasure. >> the white house and congress has failed to reach an agreement before the deadline. on tomorrow's "washington

journal," we will have more. at 8:0030 eastern, from the washington times, a guest. "washington journal," each morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> anxiety. dread. hopefulness, exaltation, fear. what would happen on january 11863 when the emancipation proclamation was signed. many people spent three months, those 100 days between september 22 in january 1, begging the president, do not do it, do not sign it. retract it. you still have time to step back, and part of what i would like to do is to tell you part of this story, this moment as the nation waited for midnight, december 31. >> tuesday night, january 1, 150

years to the day, a look at "the emancipation proclamation." he is followed by other historians on the debates and controversy surrounding emancipation. part of four days of american history tv on c-span 3. >> in the summer of 1991, they had breakfast with the washington correspondent for " the christian science monitor," and he has this regular meeting with politically important people with a bunch of reporters present, and they raise the issues of the rumors, and hillary clinton says, "i want you all to know that we have had lot -- trouble in our lives as a married couple, but we love each other. we believe in each other. i love my husband, and we are going to stay together for the rest of our lives," and they are

blown away by her commitment. what they do not know is that this is a dress rehearsal, because nine months later, when bill is soaring in the polls, almost on top of the new hampshire primary, a senator from massachusetts, the next door state, at that moment, jennifer flowers says that she has said a 12-year love affair with bill clinton and has the tape recordings to prove it. >> and professor on how the clintons had their relationship benefit their political ambitions. this is continuing four days of nonfiction books and authors through new year's day on c- span's booktv. >> neil armstrong, the first person to walk on the moon, died last summer. in september, a memorial service was held. the head of nasa, charles

bolden, led the service, which was held at the washington national cathedral. this is about 25 minutes. [applause] >> we choose to go to the moon in this decade and other things not because they are easy but because they are hard, because that gold will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one that we are willing to postpone, and one that we intend to win, and the others, too. [applause] many years ago, the grayish -- the great british explorer, george melroy, who was to.on mount everest, was asked what he would want to climate, and he said because it is there, and, well, space is there, and we are going to climate, and new hopes for knowledge and peace are there, and, therefore, as we set

sail, we ask god's blessing on the most hazardous and dangerous and greatest adventure on which man has ever embarked. thank you. [applause] >> carol, member of the armstrong family. when president kennedy challenged us in that speech, 50 years ago today, yesterday, many thought it was an impossible dream, but the vision of that young president was rooted in the knowledge that the american experiment itself was an incredible miracle. the miracle of america was only made possible by men and women of uncommon for such, determination, and courage, who dared to turn the once impossible dream of freedom, equality, and democracy into a

new and enduring reality. that legacy inspired a young neil armstrong to first interrupt his studies at purdue university to serve his country as a navy fighter pilot. he would later become a nasa astronaut, first in the gemini program, and later in apollo, but he never forgot his may be routes, and naval aviation heritage, as he lived out his life as an active member of the golden eagles. right after president kennedy's speech, neil was already working on the problem of how to land a flying machine on the moon. those of us who have had the privilege to fly in space followed the trail that he helped forge. america's leadership in space and the confidence that we can go farther into the unknown and achieve great things as a people rests with the achievements of neil and the brave men with

whom he served. he will always be remembered for taking a small step in a world beyond our own, but it was courage, grace, and humility he displayed throughout his life that lifted him above the stars. neil armstrong left more than footprints and a flag on the moon. in fact, as president obama said in a letter to carol and the family this morning, future generations will draw inspiration from his spirit of discovery, composure, and pioneering leadership in setting a bold, new course for space exploration. the imprint he left on the surface of the moon and the story of human history is matched only by the extraordinary market left on the hearts of all americans. he left a foundation for the future and paved the way for

future american explorers, to be first to step foot on mars or another planet. today, let us recommit ourselves to this grand challenge in honor of the man who first demonstrated it was possible to reach new worlds. and whose life demonstrated the quiet resolve and determination that makes every new, more difficult step into space possible. i was proud to know neil armstrong as a fellow astronaut, a trusted adviser, and a friend. it was my honor to share in the moment with the entire apollo 11 crew and senator john glenn in washington last fall as they received the congressional gold medal. it was the last time neil made a public appearance in washington, and ever true, he spoke not on his own behalf but accepted the medal, and i quote, on behalf of

his fellow apollo teammates, all of those who played a role in expanding human presence outward from birds, and all those who played a role in expanding human knowledge of the solar system and beyond, unquote. as we take the next leap forward of the heavens, we stand on the soldiers -- some -- we stand on the shoulder forced -- shoulders. there is a special window, a space window, which holds a piece of the moon rock neil and the apollo 11 crew presented to the national cathedral many years ago. it is a reminder, not only of their significant human accomplishment but an acknowledgment that achievements are made possible through god's grace. as neil took his first steps on the moon, nervous but excited

nasa's mission control center waited to hear his now famous words from the lunar surface. today, we shall share a small token of our esteemed by presenting to you, carol, and the armstrong family the flag that flew on august 25, the day of his passing. i join a grateful nation in saluting a brave and humble servant, who never stopped dreaming, never stop working to make those dreams reality, and inspired each and everyone of us. may god bless neil armstrong, and may god bless the united states of america.

♪ [choir sings] ♪ ♪

>> eternal father ♪ ♪

>> a reading from the book of exodus. moses was keeping the flock of his father-in-law, jethroe, the priest. he led his flock beyond the wilderness and came to the mountain of god. the angel of the lord appeared to him in a flame of fire out of a bush. he looked, and the bush was blazing, yet it was not consumed. then moses said, "i must turn aside and look at this great site and see why the bush is not burned up."

when the lord saw that he had turned aside tuesday, got called to him out of the bush -- aside to see, god called out of the bush, "moses," and he said, "here ia am," and he said, "come no cloer. -- closer. remove the sandals from your feet, because the ground you are on is holy ground." he said further, "i am the god of your father, the god of abraham, the god of isaac, and the god of jacob," and moses hid his face, for he was afraid to

look at god. then the lord said, "i have observed the misery of my people who are in egypt. i have heard their cries on the count of their taskmasters. indeed, i know their sufferings, and i have come to deliver them from the egyptians and to bring them up out of that land to a good and broad land, a land flowing with milk and honey, to the country of the canaanites, the hittites, the amorites, and the jebusites. the cry of the israelites has now come to me. i have also seen how the

egyptians oppress them. so come. i will send you to the pharaoh to bring my people, the israelites, out of egypt." but moses said to god, "who am i that i should go to the pharaoh and bring the israelites out of egypt?" god said," i will be with you, and this will be the sign for you that it is i that sent you. when you have brought the people out of egypt, you shall worship god on this mountain," but moses said to god," if i come to the israelites and say to them, "the god of your ancestors has sent me to you," they will ask me,

"what is his name?"" what shall i say to them? god said, "ia am that i am." "thus you say, "i have sent you." "the lord, the dog of your ancestors -- the god of your ancestors, the god of abraham, the god of is it, and the god of jacob has sent me to you. this is my name forever, and this, my title, to all generations."

the word of the lord. >> praise be to god. >> how does one adequately

express his feelings about a special friend? when a friend is also a world icon? a national hero of unimaginable proportions? and a legend, whose name will live in history long after all here to they have been forgotten? a friend whose commitment and dedication to that in which he believed was an absolute proof a man, who when he became your friend, was a friend for a lifetime? i am not sure this is possible, but i will try. neil armstrong grew up on a farm in middle america, and as a young boy, like most kids, he had a paper route.

he cut lawns. he shoveled snow, and his fascination of model airplanes gave birth to a dream, a dream of becoming an aeronautical engineer. neil had his first taste of flight when he was but six years old, and from that day forward, he never looked back. although he always wanted to design and redesign airplanes to make them do what they were not supposed to do, once he had asted flights, neil's eys turned skyward, and it was there that he always longed to be. little did neil ever realize that his dream, his longing to soar with the eagles, would give him the opportunity to be the first human being to go where no human being had gone before.

neil armstrong was a sincerely humble man. of impeccable integrity, who reluctantly accepted his role as the first team and being to walk on another world, and when he did, he became a testament, a testament to all americans of what can be achieved through vision and dedication. mind, it was never about neil. it was about you, your mothers and fathers, your grandparents, about those of a generation ago that gave neil the opportunity to call the moon his home, but never, ever was it about neil.

neil just consider that he was the tip of the era, always giving way to some 400,000 equally committed and dedicated americans, americans who were the strength behind the bow, and always giving credit to those who just did not know it could not be done. and therein lies the strength and the character of neil armstrong. he knew who he was, and he understood the immensity of what he had done. yet, n eil was always willing to give of himself. when neil, jim, and i had a chance to visit troops in afghanistan on three separate occasions, meeting them in

challah halls, carriers, and helicopters, those enthusiastic young men and women yet to be born when neil walked on the moon were mesmerized by his presence. in a typical neil fashion, he would always walk in, introduce himself, as if they did not know who he was, shaked each and every hand, and he would always give them, "hey. how are you guys doing?" as one increase of the marine, "mr. armstrong, why are you here?" neil's thoughtful and sincerely honest reply was "because you are here." he was special to these young kids and to a few older ones, as well.

deeply proud to be a navy aviator, as a civilian at the time he flew, neil never received his astronaut wings. it was a tradition of those in the military. it was on the uss eisenhower back on 2010 on our way to afghanistan that we finally received -- that he'd received the tribute that he deserved. his visibly, visibly moved response said it all, and i quote, "i have never been more proud than when i earned my navy wings of gold," and i have got to believe that there are a few golden eagles and audience you would send those words. trying to get into his inner self was always a challenge for almost anyone, maybe everyone. asked one day by a stranger,

"mr. armstrong, how did you feel when looking for a place to land on the moon with only 15 seconds of fuel remaining?" and it only the way that neil could, the way he would put away some and an index finger, and he would sort of put his hand on there, and he would say, "well, when the gauge is as empty, we all know there is a gallon or two left in the tank." [laughter] now there is a man who has always been in control of his destiny, and that, ladies and gentlemen, is vintage neil armstrong. fate looked down kindly on us when she chose neil to be the first adventurer to another

world and to look back from outer space at the beauty of our own. it could've been another, but it was not. and it was not for our reason. no one, no one but no one could have accepted the responsibility of his remarkable accomplishment with more dignity and more grace than neil armstrong. he embodied all that is good and all that is great about america. neil, wherever you are up there, almost half a century later, you have now shown once again the pathway to the stars. it is now for you a new beginning, but for us, i will promise you it is not the end.

and as you sort through the heavens -- soar through the heavens beyond where even eagles appear to go, you can now finally put out your hands and touch the face of god. farewell, my friend. you have left us far too soon. but we want you to know we do cherish the time that we had an shared together. god bless you, neil.

♪ [piano plays] ♪ >> ♪ fly me to the moon let me play among the stars let me see what spring is like on a, jupiter and mars in other words, hold my hand in other words, baby, kiss me in other words, darling, kiss me. fill my heart with song

and let me sing for ever more you are all i long for all i worship and adore in other words, please be true in other words, i love you ♪ ♪

>> former astronaut neil armstrong died. he was 82 years old. you can watch this memorial service in its entirety on c- span.org. former presidential candidate and u.s. senator george mcgovern died in october at the age of 90. tom daschle and vice-president biden spoke at his memorial service. this is 50 minutes. [applause]

>> tim, everyone, thank you very much. i feel like an interloper. you all had such an intimate relationship with george. but i have to tell you that hunter and i, my son and i, we are genuinely honored to be here. somebody said to me, you are in the middle of a campaign, how can you be here? where i come from, the question is, how could you not be here? how could you not be here for a man who did so much for so many people? it is also an honor to be here with my colleagues. you crazy son of a gun. [laughter]

i love you. jim and i served together. we became friends right away because we are both a little nuts. we say what is on our mind. and tom daschle, no one i respected more in all of the years that i worked in the u.s. senate, and, tim, your courage, god love you, as my mother would say. you have got such incredible courage and character. [applause] and commerce stephanie, thanks for helping hunter debt three georgetown -- and, stephanie. [laughter] you really screwed him up. yale. it really bothered me a lot, and it is good to see you, buddy.

thanks for the help. 1980 was a tough year, a really tough year. in 1980, we lost gaylord nelson. we lost frank church. we lost to george mcgovern. we lost the heart, soul, and spine of the united states and the speech you heard george giving, i remember like you do, but maybe from a different perspective. i was a 29-year-old kid. i was the senate nominee from the state of delaware. my first convention. i am sitting there, mesmerized, mesmerized by the man he was speaking. as i remembered it much too late in the night, but speaking.

i ran with your father in 1972. when i got elected, i was not old enough to serve. i literally got elected when i was 29 and had to wait to be constitutionally eligible to be sworn in, but i not only served with your father from 1970 to to 1980, i kept contact with your father, to my great good fortune him keeping contact with me. and i admired him from the day i became aware of him, to the day i die. -- the day he died. his phrase in his speech, "we do love this country, " i do not know anybody who love this country more than george mcgovern. and i tried to get the presidential nomination, and i was not successful as he was.

in 1988, i used to end my speeches sort of cribbing in the same style from george mcgovern ' is a speech in 1972. it was a different phrase. the monsignor will recognize it as a communion him in the roman catholic church. he will raise you up on eagle's wings and there you on the breath of dawn and make the sun shine upon you. that was my notion of the country and the obligation we had that i learned from george mcgovern. our function in public life was to raise people up on eagle's wings, bear them on the breath of dawn and let the sunshine on them, because if we did, -- with

george mcgovern, i never had a doubt, and we are more optimistic today than when we were elected. we never had a they are capable of anything given half a chance. that is maybe what jeff and i -- i have not seen you in a while -- but we were attracted to george mcgovern for the same reason i got involved in public life in my state as a kid. my state was segregated by law in the state of delaware. i got involved in a civil rights movement. i was no congressman louis. i was picketing and marching to desegregate our movie theaters

and working on the east side of my city. it was the dogs. george mcgovern's call to justice to end the war in vietnam helped shape my political sensibilities. i will leave you with that and line. he said, i am fed up to my ears warsold men dreaming up for young men to die in. [applause]

he not only spoke for our generation, he spoke for our souls. i still feel the same way. i marvel at the courage. every time any event or historical footnote reminds you of that moment, that speech, i think, as tom and jim and anyone who served in the house of senate can tell you, particularly in the senate, what incredible political courage and gumption and it took make that speech before the senate. the only thing i shared different with my friend who served is i suffered from having served their longer than all the 13 people in american history. [laughter] isn't that a hell of an indictment? [laughter] excuse me. [laughter] [applause]

the reason i mention it if i had been there for 36 years. you have no idea the butitutional unintended intended pressure that everything from the walls to the marble, this feeling preying upon those of us who served there to try to -- the hardest thing to do is to actually confront the body of women and men when they are out of line. it takes remarkable political courage. can you imagine anyone doing that? i think to myself, and i remember as a kid, a young man, the phrase, this chamber reeks with blood.

the only speech i ever heard aat came close to that was speech by an iowan, a speech on capital punishment which was similarly profound. i always thought to myself, if i ever got there, and i was not iinking at the time, but as ran, i hope and pray i have that kind of courage. i tell you what courage i did draw from george mcgovern. i come from a family not like most of you, i suspect. a typical middle-class family, three bedrooms, four kids. gramm redeyes, grandpa moves

in, aunts and uncles. it was great for the kids. probably hard for mom and dad. [laughter] i am the first united states senator i ever knew. [laughter] it was literally true until i ran. other than my opponent, i am the first united states senator i knew in my family. it is a typical american story. people say to me now and i

wonder now, what ever gave you the courage as a 29-year-old kid to announce to the united states senate against a man who had an 82% favorable rating, in the year where we knew it would be tough, senator mcgovern knew it would be tough, it was solidly red, overwhelmingly republican, but gave you the courage to run? some thought that made you so foolhardy. the answer is your father. i did not know him but i believed i could maybe go help him and the war. i honestly believed it. tút an incredible privilege i was to serve with him. i remember what frank church, i was on the foreign relations

committee, the young kid on it.   serving with your dad. we got a notice that dr.    kissinger was coming to  an executive section, that meant we private section, before  have for 07 in the senate foreign relations with a big conference table. it looked like a table in the oval office, excuse me, cabinet room.      he did not say anythid everybody thanked him.

i said, he did not say anything. i said, we should have the president come up and tell us.   [laughter] i will never forget jack calld down and arranged that afternoon for us to go down in the president, gerald ford,

kissinger, and the whole team. as we were walking in, your father turned to me and said, i like you. [laughter] [applause]    the irony is i am taking o much of your time. i apologize. the irony is the chair i sit n the vice president is chair directly across from the president.  in the middle of the conferene

table, facing inward, and i face in the middle.   based on seniority, you cane when you attend a cabinet meeting, it is not the cabinet itself. ?the most junior members sit where the vice president sits. i was sitting there. it got to me and i will never forget how nervous i was. i look at president ford? and said, i beg the president's pardon, but i am sure if the president were in my position,?? the president would ask the president my question. [laughter] i said, with all due respect, you have not told us anything. with that, the president turned and said, henry, tell him. that was the first time it was?? decided we were not going to try to sustain our presence.

it was five weeks later helicopters were taking off the roof. not because of me. ????that was the plan. the point was, i remember walking out of there thinking, i was right. ?i got to go to washington and?? the with george mcgovern? and play a little tiny part. people do not realize had your father not been there, had your father never been in the senate, so much more blood and some much? more treasure would have ?been wasted. the war would have never???????d when it did. ??it would never have ended howt did. ??your father gave courage?? to?

people who did not have? the courage to speak up to finally stand up. your father stood there and?? took all of that beating. ?your father who was characterized by these right wing guys as a coward and unwilling to fight. your father was a genuine hero. the irony used to make me so angry that your father would never speak up and talk about his heroism. your father had more courage, physical courage, in his little finger, than 95% of those guys. they continue to fight a war we should not have fought in the first place.???????? because he took such a? miserable beating, even though he did not win that election, he won the end of the war. it would never have happened. the other thing your father did, which will not go unspoken. his instinct for?? decency transformed my party. ?unrelated for the war. opened it to women,????????????g people, minorities. ??he is the father of the? moden

democratic party. ??your father is the father of?? the? modern democratic party. ?[applause] that is a fact. ?that is a fact. ?i am proud to be a member of i. [applause] i was determined not to become emotional about this. [laughter] rri had more to say here butri will skip it. rlet me just end by saying thi.

rmy dad had a great expression. he would say, you have gotrrr blood, kid. rjust remember whenever you are down, think ofr literallyrrr hundreds of thousands ofrr pee who are alive today because of your father and the lessonr he brought back. reverybody brought back different lessons. rbut your father brought backr therr lesson of seeing the italian women and children rrsearching through garbage ps and decided he was going to make

part of his life to end hunger in the world. you said you hope that thererrs a thread of connection that continues to tie us. rrmy son, hunter knew yourrr when he was a kid, a little boy when i got elected. he had the good fortunerr of knowing your dad and beingr abe to work with your dad. rtoday, hunter is the chairman ofrr reorganization that exiss ronly because of your father. to fight hunger, feedingrrrr hundreds of thousandsrr of millions of people around ther world and teaching them to feed themselves. rrthe world food program usars

your dad's. ri cannot tell you how proud i am of my son. rproud because that thread,r e same thing that brought me into oritics, and that's my son t your dad, and, in turn, myrr n to you. rthe idea your grandfather mus have smiled knowing my sonr is holding a fund-raiser for you. r[laughter] ri know this sounds corny but i cannot tell you how much joy that gives me. it makes me believe -- we irish catholics believe there is that thread. rrit does run. so, folks, george mcgovern did what probably no more than two

hands full of men and womenr he ever done in the history of thisr country. rhe summoned the public life. wholenspired arrrrrrrr oferation, literally,r leaders to get engaged in ther 1960's. many people in the room tonight and so many in washingtonr and capitals all over the country, people who served with passion, conscience, conviction, andr ty literally, not figuratively, gotr started because ofr geor mcgovern and the courager to stand up and holler for justice. he summoned thousands ofr peope who now summon new people.

rthink about it. all kidding aside. rrthink about it. rrmaybe more than a handful o other women and men inrr amern public life who had such a generational impact. it was a great honor to serve with your dad. rit was a great honor tor kno your dad. rrit was a great complementre that told me his grand pop watched my debate with paul ryan and said, i want to call joe. [laughter] [applause] rri appreciate it. it means a lot. maybe one of only two irish catholics in this church. rrrrri will have to rely oo

testify what i am about to say is true. rthe highest compliment irish catholics can give to another man or woman, literally, myr grandpa used to say, arrrrr complement i paid to yourr dad, george mcgovern was a goodr and decent man. [applause] r>> thank you so much for honoring us with your presence.

>> i am deeply honored to be here today and to have the opportunity to share some thoughts. i joined congressman mcgovern, senator hart, all of those assembled here, and all the thousands who wished they could be here, to express our heartfelt condolences and deep sympathy to you and the extended family. i know i speak for the family in expressing our gratitude and deep appreciation to all of those very distinguished visitors, who in some cases have traveled great distances to be here, on the celebration of george's life. when george accepted his party's nomination, he offered this benediction. may god grant each of us the wisdom to cherish this good land and meet the great challenge that beckons us all home. now that he is beckoned home, we will always be grateful for the ways that, through his life, through his work, and through his vision, and george lifted us far higher in meeting that

challenge. someone asked st. francis of assisi what it takes to live a good life. he replied, preached the gospel every day, if necessary, use words. i have never known anybody who preached the gospel more affectively in so many ways than george. a peacemaker. a humanitarian. a teacher. the minister.

a congressman. a senator. a voice for the voiceless. and a champion for hungry children. in some ways, george's adult life began in war. when asked about his military service, he would always minimize his heroism. but the fact is, if he had done nothing after reaching the age of 25 years old, today, we would be celebrating the life of an american hero. 35 missions in a b-24.

and as we said last night, it would have been more if the war had gone on. one more close call, shrapnel penetrate the winter of that one. nearly killing him, a blown wheel, an emergency landing. and on his 35th and final mission, so much fire and flak. when they landed, they counted

the holes in his fuselage and wings, and it numbered 110. easye's life was not an one. he saw more than his fair share of our chips and loss. he fought many battles beyond

the ones in the airplane. the hits he sustained in world war ii were easier to see, but in truth, he was riddled like that inside much of his life. but it was through his incredible sense of humor, his determination to soldier on and set the example for others. has he shrugged over the tragic loss of terry, he observed, you just never get over it. i am sure of that. you get to where you can live with it. that is all. george outlive two children, taken too soon, terry and steve. and his beloved eleanor. in light of all that, there is a certain blessing in knowing that as he left us as he did, peacefully, with family and friends around, i do not know about you, but i love the thought that george and eleanor, terry and steve, are all together now. throughout his life, as we all know, he had a love for mitchell. mitchell was his home. it is where he studied at dakota wesleyan. where he built his library when he returned home to continue his productive work in his last several years.

and in many ways, it is all where it started. george and eleanor had four small children when he decided, in 1955, to resign as chairman of the history department at dakota wesleyan and build the democratic party. their friends agreed there could only be one explanation for this decision. he was out of his mind. [laughter] actually, and george insisted there was another explanation. he said he had a desire to work in public service and be part of the world of ideas and the field of action. the hallmark of his career was his drive to bridge the gap between those worlds, to turn ideas into action, and aspirations into reality. his early years are now the stuff of legend and lore. crisscrossing the state of south dakota, shaking hands, collecting names on 3 by 5 index cards. to this day, i think duty has them all. [laughter] who could forget the classic story in his autobiography "grass roots" -- and you know which one i am talking about. he was at the state fair. i stood on the wet, cold sought in front of the dismally small tent, he wrote there was no floor, i had no literature.

i had no coffee, no elected officials. what is more, the gop had a live elephant. [laughter] when a democrat stop by and offered him the use of his

donkey, george jumped at the chance, drove 14 miles in his chevy, a car, not a pickup, and there was the first multiple political disaster. the donkey had sent one of his hooves through the window, blood all over the car, relieved himself on a nun, bit the little?-?-?-?-?-?-?-?- girle whole?-?- tent down. ?-i have never trusted donkeys

since, georgia wrote. they deserve to be called asses. [laughter] [applause] and it was not until i was senate majority leader that i fully realized the value of that statement. [laughter] he soon created an organization that enabled him to be the biggest vote-getter in the state, 1966, and won a seat in the conference, becoming the first democrat to be sent to washington from south dakota in 22 years. he immediately became a force to reckon with, introducing a

farm bill the very first day. over the course of several months, passed more legislation than any one of the 44 new members who had come in with him at the same time. his constituents were the people for whom he fought. they were south dakota families barely holding on to their family farms. they were common working people in south dakota, and all over the country.

they were native americans, they were poor people, hungry people, people others often overlooked. and then it was just as remarkable, in 1962, south dakota sent him to washington as the first democrat elected to the senate in 26 years. if george mcgovern had never entered politics, he might still have impacted thousands of people like me. most likely as a distinguished

history professor, but i doubt that i would ever been elected to congress. growing up in south dakota, the idea of getting elected as a democrat seemed as likely as martians landing in your yard. it just did not happen. [laughter] but because of what george had done, that changed. the fact that he won both his house and senate seat expanded the hopes and aspirations of hundreds of would-be democratic candidates, just like me. but even more was what he did those seats that affected us the most deeply, what he did. in 1972, i was a intelligence officer in the air force in omaha. my day job was analyzing intelligence data on the soviet union, but i had another volunteer job in the evening. helping to run the mcgovern for president primary office in omaha.

it was certainly an unusual combination, and i think i had the shortest hair cut of any one of around. but what attracted me was not all that this man was from my state. what attracted me was his intellect. his integrity. his passion for the things in which he believed. and his courage to speak out. and his enormous decency. i like what someone wrote about him in his mitchell high-school yearbook. for a debater, he is a nice kid. [laughter] but for a politician, he would be extraordinary. i will remember my first lesson in political leadership from george mcgovern. i have the opportunity to work in jim's campaign and then go to washington. then jim that we come back here in 1976 to get around and get to know people. it was 1977. i had not yet announced. it was at the state fair. the country was consumed in a raging debate about the panama canal treaties. as we were walking down the fairway, a very angry crowd encircled george, demanding that he explain his position on those treaties, and change it, threatening that they would work hard to defeat him in the next election if he did not. george stood there and listened, quietly. when it was his time to talk, in the most reason, calm, persuasive, particulate way, he shared with that group why those treaties were not only good for panama, but what they

meant for us. the crowd dissipated. as we walked back to the democratic booth, i remarked that george, i said, george, i cannot but help, no the contrast between an angry crowd and what you just did. he said, i learned a long time ago, is a whole lot better to tell people what you believe from here, then to tell them what you think they want to hear. [applause] george said the standard for candor, conviction, and for honesty. for two years, from 1978 to 1980, i had the honor to serve

in the same delegation with george from south dakota. although he was the most senior and i, the most junior, he treated me as an equal. and i cannot begin to tell you the lessons i learned watching this man. mostly by his example. lessons that i only wish people in washington could better understand today. like the fact that you can express your convictions deeply without ranting.

you can disagree without being disagreeable. he showed me the cynics were wrong, that politics can be an honorable profession. but you make sacrifices in politics. sometimes, big sacrifices. but you do not sacrifice your idealism or your conscience. people sometimes talk about mcgovernism. some even use it as a pejorative. but mcgovernism means believing in basic american values. democracy, justice, the dignity of honest work, tolerance, and never hesitating to embrace

those values, even when they are not popular. it is courage combined with commonsense. it is recognizing our responsibility to face hard questions, like the shame of hunger in the world, for the reality of ill-advised wars in vietnam or iraq. mcgovernism means believing that government has certain, basic responsibilities, like guaranteeing civil rights and searching for ways to live peacefully in the world. it means choosing dialogue over blame. respect over division. hope over fear. what made george a great public servant was not only his compassion and integrity, but it was his uncommon vision.

he saw connections others did not see, like, the connection between political stability and hungry children. that vision became food for peace. and the mcgovern-adult education program. he also saw things sooner than others. in 1962, he said the most important issue of our time is the establishment of conditions for world peace. nine months into his first term, he gave his first speech on the non. 1970, he warned about the dependence of the united states on fossil fuels. in 1984, he urged all of our american leadership to understand the complexity, challenges, and the volatility of circumstances in the middle east. i believe america would be a better place had george become president of the united states. [applause]

that does not mean his campaign was a failure. far from it. the 1972 campaign opened up a political process. it confused a new generation the belief in what eleanor called the politics of the impossible. it was that kind of politics at george earned the enormous respect, that crossed the aisle, and transcended party lines. and along with it, enormous achievement. there are children today -- and jim mcgovern mentioned it -- the children today in the world living and have better lives because of what george and bob dole did together. [applause] on the surface, george mcgovern and i should be poles apart, senator dole what said. after all, he is a liberal

democrat and i am a republican of the conservative stripe. he ran for the senate as i was chairman of the party. i believe our positions are diametrically opposed. yet in the most important ways, he said, i regard george as a close friend and kindred spirit. he is a decent man who puts principal above -- principle of expediency. another man that served in the 1960's said simply, george mcgovern is the most decent man in the united states senate. [applause] that was robert kennedy who spoke two months before he was killed. it is well known amongst his friends that george loved to drive. last night, mathieu spoke so powerfully and eloquently about his experiences with his

grandfather, including a drive to mitchell. jim tells me this great story of traveling from florida to south dakota through wisconsin last summer over nine days. i had my own experiences with george driving over the years in south dakota. i will never forget one night, it was a summer, story, a beautiful night. george and i were coming back from the chill, coming back from a program, driving through sioux falls.

he was driving. we were going around 95 miles per hour and he was looking out the windshield saying, look at all the great stars, pointing them out one by one. [laughter] my eye were frozen on the road. i said, george, look at the darn road! [laughter] metaphorically, and actually, george plowed down the road. his eyes focused on something beautiful and something distant. it in a speech at wheaton college in illinois a month before the 1972 election, he

told his audience, i felt called into the work of serving others. at first i thought my vocation was in ministry, and i enrolled in the seminary. after a period of deep reflection, i thought i should become a teacher, yet, even at my teaching at dakota wesleyan, thought their cause something else for me to do, and that led me to politics. he went on in that speech to say that we know the kingdom of god

will not come from a party platform. we also know, he said, if someone is hungry, we give him food. if someone is thirsty, we give him drink. if someone is a stranger, we take him in. if he is naked, we clothe him. if he is sick, we take care of him.

if he is in prison, we visit him. that encapsulates simply and powerful in the story of george mcgovern's years on this earth. he and i had many favorite poets and writers. w?one of our favorites was yeat. w?we both loved one ofw? yeats' lines. think of where my glory beginsw? and ends. w?w?my glory is that i have such friends. w?our glory, our glory is that e had a friend named george mcgovern. [applause] >> former u.s. senator warren

rudman died . but this portion of his memorial service is 35 minutes.

>> thank you. wonderful to be with many of my old and dear friends and enemies. [laughter] my friend warren was rough and dissatisfied and impatient and blunt and occasionally profane. he was independent-minded and stubborn. in other words, he was my ideal senator who possessed all of the attributes of an irresistible personality. i like and admire him an awful lot. he seemed to be one of a kind in the senate. the people of the new hampshire

are sturdy, problem solvers who take responsibilities for themselves and the problems of their time. they like to get done what can be done, even if it involves the dreaded proposition, compromise. without a lot of posturing or second-guessing, on issues that he believed were elemental questions are right and wrong, he was like his state -- immovable. he introduced me to new hampshire. i mean that literally. he introduced me to thousands

of his constituents from berlin -- when i ran for president in 2000. he instructed on how to communicate my message effectively, which is campaign speech for how to talk to people. winning the primary would significantly improve if i learned to talk to the people of new hampshire like warren talked to them, which was to listen to them first and then respond lightly, -- bluntly, honestly, and argumentatively. it was exactly as he predicted. he assured me on primary night as the last votes were counted that he had -- it was precisely as he told me it would be weeks ago. that was warren. he did not want to be surprised by anything that and in the state of new hampshire or the campaign he was involved in. he was a wise man. his wisdom was never more acute than when he applied it retroactively. [laughter] warren's certainty and his own judgment was earned honestly. it came from doing the right

thing not for personal a party interest, but the first priority of his public service. if you are intent on doing right by the people you serve and advancing the public good as he was, god will give you the wisdom to know what the right thing is. the right thing is not just to distinguish right from wrong, good from evil, but the better thing from the easy thing, the necessary thing from the popular thing, the modest progress from the not good enough thing. that kind of wisdom was manifest, i think, and his assessment. the automatic budget cuts was a bad idea. in 1990, i was a member of an organization i would have preferred not to join. i was stuck in what seemed to be an eternity in the ethics committee investigation co- chaired by warren. he was sympathetic to my

situation. i was miserable. i believe the committee should've acted swiftly to decide a case against john glenn and me. i think warren thought it should have to. politics made impossible for the committee to reach a just result. warren was intent on achieving a just result. he was my friend. he wish i could've been released from the committee sooner, but he could not and would not value our friendship more than he valued justice. that was a lesson of integrity i did not enjoy learning, but i am glad i learned it. i'm glad i learned it from the example of warren rudman.

the night before the 2000 new hampshire primary, warren graciously hosted a dinner for me at his home. he gave a toast and said we would win. he said he was proud to be art of a campaign. i remember thinking, win or lose, i had been part of something that warren rudman is proud of. i was a very proud man indeed. besides being gruff, he was first and last, a man of integrity. rest in peace, old friend. we miss you a lot. [applause] >> thank you, senator. i now run the risk of appearing to give undue representation of the state of maine, but i

nonetheless call upon -- >> thank you. you might have noticed that vice president biden and i were chatting. he bet me that he would give the shortest speech. [laughter] for me to win that, i would have to sit down right now. warren was my friend. i met him back in 1975. i was campaigning for president ford's election. we became good friends from that time. six years later we would serve in the senate together. we learned we had a lot in common. both our grandfathers immigrated from small towns along the polish border. both of them passed through ellis island. neither warren or i ever knew the real names of our grandparents. they both lived in the lower

manhattan eastside. neither one could make a living there. both of them migrated north. both of them ended up in maine. we have a lot of common. my family stayed there. warren's went to move to new hampshire. our motto was, "that is the way life should be." new hampshire was, "live free or die." [laughter] he lives truly free, and he was prepared to fight for that freedom. we shared a moderate republican philosophy. i always try to approach issues wearing a velvet glove. warren wore brass knuckles. in fact, we gave him the nickname "sledgehammer."

it is a blunt instrument that hurts you when it hits. he was the sledgehammer in all of our hearings. the one thing we talked about this afternoon is his honor, honesty, and his humor. not a word about his humility. that will be a very short subject for me to discuss today. [laughter] he did not believe the meek shall inherit the earth. he loves combat in every way. there's always a sense of combat in warren.

he fought for a principal and separation of church and state and he thought for a friend, justice souter, howard baker, bob dole, and certainly john mccain. last night i spent hours re- reading warren's memoir "combat."

i found out he was a great judge of character. on senator mitchell, he said, "george could utter the most partisan statements and still sound as innocent as a choir boy." [laughter] he said, "he is such a man of intelligence and charm, i could disagree with him and still be his friend." on senator biden, "joe was smart, young, ambitious, disorganized, and bursting with energy and enthusiasm." what has changed? on david souter, he said something -- each of us have

spoken at the podium about warren. he said, "david is my friend. i trust him. i respect him. i like him." he made me think, reflect, and laugh. i think all of us would say the same thing about warren today. he made us think, reflect, and laugh. one final thing about his humor -- senator baker was here today. both warren and i voted for a bill. i received a great deal of hate mail because of my name. i'm half irish and half jewish. i am the only one who can be put on the israeli border and be shot from both sides. [laughter] i was getting all of the hate mail and warren was not getting any of them. i will broadcast nationwide that you are jewish and i am not. that way you will get all of the hate mail. he said, do not do that. you are much more politically secure than i am. besides, you would make a nice jewish boy. [laughter] let me conclude with what my favorite statements -- with one of my favorite statements. it sums up my feelings about warren.

"through our great fortune, in our youth our hearts were touched with fire. it is given to us to learn at the outset that life is a profound and passionate thing." do not pretend to undervalue the rewards of ambition. we have seen with our own eyes beyond the goal fields the

honor. above all, we have learned that whether a man -- will look downward and dig, the one and only success is to bring to his work a mighty heart." warren rudman was handed a spade in korea and dug down. he was also the senator handed the ax and cord and found ice. always with honor and humor and always with a mighty heart. [applause] >> thank you, mr. secretary. it is now a pleasure to balance the ticket geographically. [applause]

.

we have entities on every continent. now we want to turn it around and do various things. the surest thing that transmits the values of our culture are these emerging experiences. we want to multiplied them tenfold and 100 so that they go through the globe. our folks are doing that anyway,

but we will help them down the road. at the same time we will build up our capacity. people will have gone out and absorbed an ethos. they find myriad ways to apply it. whether it's the music or whatever, they will come back to us and we will help them to tend the garden and that it will start to organize itself in ways we cannot imagine. we will be humbled. what we are trying to do is engineer a world movement at the grass routes aunt clara up high as well -- at the grass

roots and up high as well. >> we can take another question. >> you mentioned some of these movements have this will doubt. the biggest crisis we are facing as a humanity is climate change. what do you think social movements can do to turn this around and make corporations and governments take action? >> i have been working with 350.org and bill, a very compelling advocate. he just did a tour. the whole idea is these kinds of cultural initiatives help reframe the debate. as we saw in the last election, the discussion was not about the numbers. it's above the emotional logic.

with sandy, you cannot argue with the storm. the strong will, and it will smash your house. even if you are ann coulter. we have to understand this is more about internalizing the science and making the science become part of the cultural vocabulary. the problem with the right-wing, a big cloud of disinformation is people are very naive and the arts can help catalyze a more emotional discussion. the numbers spar speaking already. we have ted record level drops and firestorms -- we have had record level droughts and firestorms. you would have to be in an absolute fool or someone like george bush cannot process that. it's incredible. it is still have to point out

hi, your losses on fire. that's my take on it. >> one more question, on the left. >> thank you. part of what you said about the gift giving economy, there was a book on that. and there's another book " the ethnography." with social movements around the world in the coming year, do you see it going more towards reaction and then fizzling out or accelerating the move from creative to a reactive force? >> everything is reaction to

something. we all came from something extreme before us. yes, you want to do that? >> i will go back to what i said back podium. i -and a member of the creative class. i like this dead session we are in, because it is forcing people to think enlarger time solutions. during booms -- as a resident of san francisco, i know all about booms. if people cannot think beyond the next quarter, they cannot think beyond the next quarter, they cannot think beyond the next day. they just want more versions of what they know to make more money. it narrows the range of your

mind the way fear does. awhile.it continues for whil because if we cannot think beyond the next year or the next th, you or the next monconn will not do anything about global warming. we are living in a world in which everything in our life is not sustainable. what if everybody in china had a two cars and swimming pools? that is not sustainable. the reason we cannot maintain political progress is we a ce.s dissident we have to get beyond an economy

that is predicated on unlimited, increasing amounts of consumption and with no end in sight, because the end is in sight. maybe if we have to cope with a rude reality for a while longer, we will get a little more intelligent. >> on that note, one of the things that intrigues me with these kinds of situations is that ideas are very scarce resources. we have to start thinking about maximizing and amplifying ideas. that is so incredible, because the idea of possibility is so important to celebrate. when i say possibility, if people say you cannot do that or this and you cannot think that, there is a wholesome biology that works. if you are at the edge of language and you cannot describe something, you are at the end of your vocabulary. we need to build a new vocabulary about progress, our role as a species on this

planet, but above all the fact it, thewe don't do planet will do it for us. i can imagine the near future bring there's a tremendous amount of people. the u.s. military considers the weather as a weapon. there's a lot of intense stuff such as el nino and la nina. i went to antarctica and it was like a nuclear bomb had gone off with huge chunks of ice falling off, but you don't hear about that in the news. it's been a real pleasure. i know we have to wrap up. >> on that note. thank you very much. [applause] >> next, a discussion on innovations in technology that could impact the health-care industry. as part of the world in 2013 festival, hosted by the economist. it is 30 minutes.

[applause] >> i have the pleasure of talking about health care in 2013. 2013 is going to be a big year for health care. there's an enormous amount of exciting research in mobile health and personalized medicine, at the same time the the affordable care act is continuing its torturous implementation with 2014 as the big year when medicaid will be expanded, when people will be required to get insurance, and the continuing question of how to expand access to healthcare, how to improve health care, or costs is going to heat up in the next year. to discuss these issues we have the chairman of adventure holdings.

she has also trained as an astronaut. please welcome esther. [applause] >> good morning. i am going to talk briefly and make predictions for three markets concerning health. they are the markets for health care, the market for bad health, and the market for health itself. the health-care market is what you think of, drugs, pharma, insurance companies, doctors, hospitals. in the u.s., we now have health reform. things will change slowly and there slowly turning towards keeping people healthy rather than treating them when they are sick. drug companies will

continue mining because they cannot charge enough for their drugs. the insurance companies will wine because they have to treat people that are sick as opposed to just the healthy ones. but they will figure out to some extent how to align their incentives with that. the government will not have to be had met somebody so companies that investors are helping institutions to change the process to improve that kind of thing. that will continue. overall, it's pretty good, but don't expect any dramatic changes. the market for bad health, companies are beginning to understand that they need to promote healthy foods, so they are going to put new additives in the same old bad food. so now you have fruit bars with yogurt or candy with fiber.

watch out for more that. it's really hard, because there's a huge market for bad food and includes not just the bad food but advertising, everyone around you is eating something with sugar and salt and it tastes great. that will continue. the third market for good health, we're seeing exciting and dramatic changes, based on a two fundamental things that have been moving along for awhile that are coming together. you'll see announcements even over the next few days as well as in 2013. it is the rise of user- generated data. whether it is things like by nike fule or this tool that lets me count how many steps i have done. phone app that letsp

me monitor my sleep and blood pressure. and there is a noninvasive monitor for internal biomarkers like blood sugar and other chemical components. there's a new excitement now about the bacteria in your gut. people are going to start collecting that stuff by themselves, sharing it, posting it. the second half of what is making this happen is on-line networks. you have heard about social media. this is social health data. it will be used in two day ways. people will encourage other people to engage in healthy behavior, avoid the products, or at least keep them in moderation. also, we will be generating a lot of data so we can do what

amounts to phase four clinical trials after drugs are released, or maybe things that are not cost-effective because nobody is excited about selling them, like oat bran or the number of glasses of water you drink or sleeping more. we will generate data that will allow us to quantify the effects of our behavior of our health. >> thank you. our next speaker is the executive director of the futuremeds and looks at technology in medicine and health care in general. please welcome daniel. >> it's a fast-moving world. i think the world in 2013 need

to shift from where it's been currently. i recently was at massachusetts general hospital where i did my residence in the 1990's. it looks as it did the last 20 years. not that much has changed. the opportunity in 2013 is to start getting health care out of the buckets we found ourselves in in terms of anatomy and so on and start thinking differently. part of the big shift was obamacare. as positions we practice reimbursement-based medicine. shifting the curb. there's pressure to take health care out of the hospital and into our homes and onto our own bodies. a lot of that will enable some fast-moving technologies. we're in an exponential age

right now. there are disruptive technology is coming together helping a variety of folks reinvent help care. genomics, we have dropped the price of sequencing the human genome at twice the rate. in 2013 there will be tens of thousands sequenced. we will start to learn what to do with that data we have put together. there are challenges such as the sequencing and the fact that now you can get your gut sequenced. all that will come together. competition is getting faster. one prediction will be that we will change the old procedures such as the angiogram and do a scant in the clouds. -- do a scan. you can personalize the 30 over the internet for the individual.

-- personalized the phil therapy. we can replace an ultrasound with a quick mri on your laptop. the fan has been a dramatic change in its evolution and has had an impact on health care. in the last few months there has been a $35 android tablets produced in india. this has huge implications for health care. we will start to give these away try patients. we will start to see these new dashboards on our mobile phones and tablets. physicians will soon be able to prescribe apps. we're seeing digitization of data and the ability to use them as a smart platform. a new iphone case was approved last week that enables me to do

real-time ekg on the phone to my cardiologists or to use with a triage nurse. that's an example of something moving to the phone. it's not just diagnostics. and my watch to measure my heart rate. we of sensors everywhere. those are becoming -- the idea of a check up wherever you might be. visit your position on your smartphone. that will evolve quickly in 2013. who owns the data is becoming a challenge. artificial intelligence, we cannot keep up. we need intelligence augmentation to understand what is happening with our patients and to integrate all the new data to the point where we will have almost an onstar for our bodies with sensors everywhere. those are getting more complex.

there was a prize announced, a 10 million-dollar purse. 200 people entered the competition. here's an early prototype that was released. i can put this little device on my forehead and get streaming data to my smartphone. temperature, heart rate, respiratory rate, and so on. speaking in my phone with my clinician will be powerful. these will be selling in 2013. the last couple examples will be connected help. social media, social connectivity leveraging our behavior. i downloaded an app of me if i gained 50 pounds. robotics are starting to move from the severely disabled, enabling the paralyzed to what, to brain-computer interface,

with robotics. less than a hundred dollars, you can control your environment. there's an application review and focus your attention where kids might not need any more ritalin. the nobel prize came out this year on stem cells. it's been emerged with other technologies like 3-d printing. it's been covered by the economist. we will see more of that with more complex organs in the coming years. i teach and we are reinventing other elements. this will help with vaccines . we bring people together from different theaters. that is powerful. there are now new programs like designers coming together in healthcare. in 2013 we will see design

thinking more applicable just like in the world of aviation. i've been a pilot and a flight surgeon over the last decade. we are pouring back to madison. using checklists in the operating room and beyond. those are being amplified. we're starting to see the applications in dashboards. all this simulation is becoming the norm in medical schools. increasingly changing how we do health care. the data is now glassified. we want just the right amount of information, and not too much. one thing that will impact that is the world of global glas -- google glass, which is coming out next year. i will use this with my patients. it will be an interesting couple

in health care that i can see my patients. the last example will be radar. if we can seem our cars, self- driving apps will be able to help us crowd source, the best route to work in rome. smart ways to know where the influenza is. leveraging your social networking to know who not to shake hands with that day. dashboards are coming to our health care. we will move from an air that is episodic and reactive to one that is continuous and proactive. that will make a huge difference. we will pick things up earlier instead of practicing stage

three and stage four medicine. everett tumor will be sequenced. pulling all these things together will help us reinvent health care in 2013. in many ways, the future is already here, just not evenly distributed. so, thanks allo lot. [applause] >> thank you for that presentation. it's a really exciting vision and painted for 2013. the reality of the health care sector is often somewhat different. it's not may be as fast moving as others. you look at the labor productivity, that has increased by almost two percentage points per year. in health care, it climbs at about 0.6% per year. there's data showing electronic help records in many cases raise the costs and lower productivity. there's a gap between the vision and the reality. what is keeping some of the

ideas that both of you describe from taking hold in the health- care sector in a bigger way? >> i will answer that, but i first want to argue all little about the productivity, in terms of we are not measuring productivity the right way. as part of the problem. we are measuring how many cat scan did you do versus how many lives did you improve? that's the real problem. the incentives are going the wrong direction. we can measure the productivity of what we are counting, but we are counting the wrong stuff. that is what, in part, obamacare and accountable care and all these other things are trying to change. >> labor productivity, to be clear. >> labor productivity, and output of cat scan, $20 -- if you made the cat scan cost more,

it would increase the productivity. and so, it is obviously are measuring the wrong things. we are starting to change that. second, we are measuring too closely, in other words, we are looking for instant gratification. what you spend now on a home doesh care 8, waid, who nothing to do much and makes $8 an hour, but the old people are happier, they live longer and healthier, and they don't go to the hospital. so those things don't get counted. there's a huge amount of productivity to be gained not by paying doctors more but by bringing in more low-paid people

who will make the people they serve healthier. >> we have a massive primary care physician shortage. there's 40 million uncovered americans that now will be covered under obamacare. using smart connective devices will help. the background of maybe a whole panel of certified doctors. you can measure that. the overall hospital mortality rate went down 30%. the new medical students at stanford get an ipad with their curriculum on the first day. a new generation will be interacting and practicing medicine differently. but often appears want to old- fashioned clinical trials -- the payors want. we will give a to do online-

patient-engaged trials in real time. what esther needs in terms of her genetics in her 2013 profile. some of the incentives are starting to shift for value- based care. they can prescribe u.s. blood pressure cuff. one out of three americans have high blood pressure. seoul, they are starting to fund things to drive better care at lower cost. >> using technology to change workflow on the provider side, doctors and nurses operating in a more efficient way to improve care. it's also about engaging the patients. you pulled all did that it's out of your jacket and i was thinking about it as a mary poppins bag of gadgets. it is a very specific type of consumer that will be invested in these. how applicable is this era of quantified, complete self-

medicine? an i are weird.n -- and i. we get a lot of freebies, but occasionally we pay for some of the stuff. [laughter] you will have these leading-edge people. we will start and generate some data. we are motivated, we are techies. employers will start to say we give people free coffee, subsidize their lunches, we have daycare, we have a basketball court, so why don't we try this? maybe these tools will make our employees help yohealthier. they actually benefit from you

being healthier and happier, showing up. they will have teams that play baseball. with a lot, they will generate data that shows this stuff really works and then more and more people will do it, because it is in their interest and social models will change. second is a combination of online and human health, counseling for pre-diabetics. 10 groups of 10 people. the really cool thing is a lot of people who go through the program not only lose weight but they want to become counselors. so we are solving unemployment as low as diabetes. >> often the data geeks' want to measure every step. these are consumer devices for tracking are raped and emotion.

-- tracking your heart rate and emotions. we don't want to let health-care technologies to get in the way. we want to enable the patient/doctor relationship. if you can walk in and see me and i already have your activities and problems, we can have a much more focused visit. >> one last question before we take questions from the audience. who owns the data, that question is becoming increasingly important. and implanted devices that generate a more complex in of information about your health condition. how do you see that debate evolving?

>> yuka as an individual should own your own data and decide to share it, hopefully, safely on line. my friend developed a defibrillator and the company will not give him the credit. there have been prizes for looking at data from a gold mine. maybe we can start to mine some of the health and data. if we incentivize the system, we can hopefully find some of that gold. >> you should own your own data and you will decide whether to give it to someone, whether to donate or give it to science. there was a congressman talking about genetics data, which in some states and in many countries the individuals cannot access.

the skies said women are finding this data and are taking out their own overseas, which is ridiculous. -- this guy said. the point is there are some who think we cannot handle this stuff. >> questions from the audience. >> this sounds great, but if we don't have essential benefits covering hearing aids and we have a population that's aging and living longer, what is the reality of actually covering anything? and do you have any thoughts on how to get hearing aids covered? >> great question. who pays? correct i don't know the details about hearing aids. but everything we are talking about will cost less and bring more helpful in the long run so we can afford during a it's for everybody. i know that sounds like a congressperson speaking. >> [inaudible]

>> let us come talk to them for you, seriously. with hearing aids, they will be much healthier and they will cost less. >> even though there's a long- term savings, there's a short- term cost. any thoughts on how to change the reimbursement? >> the big ones are starting to pay attention to this. there's thousands of apps out there. etna is buying those and putting them together and letting people use simple apps. and there's prevention. they're recognizing tools that are getting cheaper for hearing aids and for vision. the trick is who pays for it? hopefully, some of these technologies are getting cheaper.

like the tablets at a cheaper cost. >> further questions? >> i am in emergency medicine. i agree, but i think wrong factors are being measured right now. what i see where we are measuring certain things that i have seen children get missed for vascular tumors in their heads because people are stopping their use of certain technologies. i've also seen medicare multiple sclerosis patients in tears because they are a admitted within 30 days and the new obamacare rulings don't allow readmission for 30 days. and what people don't see most of the time is when i take a patient from an outside practitioner for an admission to the hospital, they have already decided the and patient

should be admitted. they send them through the emergency room to be admitted again through the hospital and it costs extra money. the other redundancy that occurs is they don't send them in with their studies that have already done and their lab work. >> what is your question? >> i think that we are not measuring the right factors. i do think we will have to look at other factors in the future that are the redundancies. there is yelp orating restaurants and there will be more places for rating -- physicians ratingyelp for rating restaurants. so the positions will either get a backlash or they will get rewarded. it may change in certain systems.

there are different incentives and alignments out there. >> my prediction for 2013 is we will have to get better at statistics so we can understand the difference between the results of a doctor who gets less sick patients and the change he made in their health versus someone got healthy patient and make them worse. >> last question. >> >> and said the patient owns the data. that's not really practical. the state department systematically loses hundreds of thousands of classified secret documents. >> you cannot protect it, but your o own it. i leave a piece of hair behind and somebody can get my genetic

code from it. it's not perfect. the basic principle of democracy is we owned it and we should able to control it it. we want to use it wisely. >> there are new challenges. there was a movie about all of us being sequenced at birth. what happens if they say i'm turning off your pacemaker? that should not stop us from leveraging that data. [laughter] we should be mindful of that as we go. so there are balances. >> thank you both of our panelists for speaking with us. we appreciate it. [applause] >> the white house and senate leaders reached a bipartisan compromise on the fiscal cliff that will allow tax breaks to rise on income over $450,000. of the house still needs to vote on the measure.

on today's washington journal we will get the latest on the fiscal cliff. at 8:30 eastern, another expert. washington journal, each morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> next, a discussion on the history and influence of media. host,hear from npr looking at the current state of media, coverage of the 2012 election, and changes since the golden age of television. this event was posted by the new york institute of technology. it's an hour and 20 minutes. fabrics are moderator tonight is a professor of media studies at fordham university. he is the author of four books on cultural programming. for 15 years he was the head of special projects at the directors guild. he frequently moderates events around the city for the screen actors guild, the producers guilds, bafta, the academy

of promotion pictures arts and sciences, and for us. next, we cannot be honored and delighted to have the managing editor and co-host of npr's a -- "on the media," and is the author of the book "the influence machine." we will be doing a sign of her book in paperback. she's been at npr many years, including a three-year stint in moscow, where she covered the last turbulence years of president boris yeltsin's term. i know that all of you die hard

fans of her show to admit there's something about brooke that pulls you in at 7:00 on saturdays. put it exactly right when he wrote, "just like malcolm gladwell, broooke can somehow take any subject, even something you don't give a dam about and make it very interesting." please welcome a two-time peabody award winner, brooke gladstone. [applause] >> thank you, catherine. and thank you, brooke, for coming tonight. i like your book. you talk about a number of media bias is in the book. one of my favorites is the

narrative bias, that is the media takes a story and a matter what it is, has to come up with a beginning, a middle, and an end to it. we have just gone through an election in which there were thousands of just such recording events. i wonder, you think we miss a lot to win presidential elections are treated primarily as a a former art-year heavyweight battle -- a 4-year heavyweight battle beginning right after the last election is held? >> we miss something. i'm careful not to completely condemned it, because that is a big part of the story. the problem is, what is not covered? the problem is that one gets completely fixated on gaffes, who said this and how did that have an impact. some of these are quite

revealing, even though i cannot entirely condemned, you have your 47% remark, which anyone would argue could possibly be extremely revelatory. he said he did not mean it and after the election he pretty much said the same thing again, speaking about governor romney. but it did tell us a lot and it had a great impact. first the president's poor debate performance. these are part and parcel of american life. they're part of democracy. the problem is that we are required for narrative. we like stories. w organize our information in organize our information in the form of stories. it's part of what is wired into the way that we organize and

interpreted for mission and is wired into a business and journalism. there are discussions of tax policy, discussions of obamacare and so forth. once you said it, can you say it again? it is antithetical to news to keep reporting the same thing over and over again every time somebody misrepresents it it. >> speaking about the election, how would you characterize the way the press handled this election compared to other elections? >> they all suck, let's face it. i cannot remember a single election where i said, wow. on the other hand, i have been criticizing and analyzing the media for the last four elections at least. so i and they're looking for it and waiting for it and there is.

and so, it goes on, election cycle after election cycle after election cycle. >> your show itself played somewhat of a role in covering the election so extensively. you faced one of the great media figures in the election, which was john sununu. i wonder if you could share but it was like to face the evil master. >> it was up there among the most contentious interviews i have ever done. it's right there with at john stossel, a truly train wreck interview, but fascinating for that effect. when he said, when i questioned his remarks, he said, "you are public radio and you are just there to kill the president's but -- the president's butt, and why

should we pay any attention to your?" public radio is refreshing. here he is, here's the guy, unvarnished. it was very evident, but i never edit to win the argument. as a result, we never get complaints about the evidence we do. but he was who he was. so i thought it was really useful and even though i was left kind of like this all the way through it. >> he seems to have that effect on whoever he talks to. you bring up the notion of npr. i want to ask why npr and pbs are such a target for people like john sununu or romney. why, particularly at npr, where fairness and our objective is seem to be so emphasized, why does everyone -- i guess, why

are you such a target for people you would think would embrace fairness and conductivity? >> who would that be? " that's true. why is big birds such an enemy? >> its not a big bird. big bird is the savior. you're after year, every administration has bumped into -- has collided with npr and complained about it. republicans and democrats. it's only republicans that want to fight. the only thing that beat them back every time is big bird. he's invincible and he slices through the opposition. why public radio and public television is such a target is public radio is increasing in influence, but most important is that% of public radio's money

comes from the government. if that money were not there, if they did not have the taxpayer banner to wave, they would not have a case to make. -- 10% of public radio's money comes from the government. it has been 30 years of creation of this notion that mainstream media reports in a liberally biased way. a lot of people felt ill served by mainstream media. in fact, there was one completely dead form of media that was resurrected by rush limbaugh. that is fm radio, because it was a place where people who felt ill served or not served by mainstream media could go and be angry.

it-- a -- am radio. the same formula was applied to fox news. although i watched fox news almost exclusively on election night. >> who didn't? >> i don't mean forgoing purposes. i just wanted to see how they covered it. shep smith is a very fair guy. the commentators they had to talk about the election, the election results, were more diverse than more on msnbc, by far. and you had the great moment when karl rove produced that primal scream and use of fox trying very hard to address this in a clear and open anway. i'm understand the head of fox news said to the staff before

the election, "if it looks like obama is winburn, don't act like somebody ran over a dog -- like obama is winning." some did anyway. >> we live in an age where it's possible to be hermetically sealed off from any opinion that does not agree with your own. fox viewers take the kool-aid from roger ailes. msnbc viewers live in an age of new deal idealism. many people have pointed out that it's really not that different from the way the press used to behave one-hundred 50 years ago when everything was partisan in terms of reporting. i'm just wondering. we live in an age of 24-7 cable networks. is it now impossible for one

point of view to ever really listen to another point of view? >> it is entirely possible. you are right about that history. i spent a big chunk of my book recounting the history of journalism from the invention of the written word to the year 2042. that's a little science fiction at the end. when i find is over and over again, the golden period that so many people referred to is basically the golden age of pre [indiscernible] media. there was a creation of a medium which was way were expensive, which was television, which required assembling enormous audiences. to do that you have to create

television that appeals to a broad middle and marginalizes outsiders. if you want to watch television, you will have to find yourself identifying with that big middle, no matter that your life has nothing to do with the life that beaver cleaver lived. so there are a lot of people that were otherwise not represented, people of all different colors, people with accents, immigrants, people involved at the end of their names, we never saw themselves on television, who were forced, if they wanted to be entertained by the great medium of the day, to subscribe to this great middle. likewise, at the time television was being created, television newscasts, the government was in the midst of a political moment that was fraught with the cold war. the collision of the cold war

and the technology created a culture of the -- the culture of or the file of our objectives. leading stuff out and creating a big central point of view. that made everybody happy, especially the government that was licensing television and regulating it. mostly, it's been a big mess. to get to your question about how do we ever find voices with whom reflect the views with whom we don't agree? of course we can. there was a study done at harvard that found that people who were incredibly well informed before the internet or even more informed after the internet. and people who were not interested in news before the internet were now even less

informed after the internet, which just shows what i've always believed and which i think all the evidence bears out, the new technologies make me and you more of what we were going to be any way. if you are naturally curious and you are willing to venture out of your comfort zone, the environment is so rich. if you want to be hermetically sealed, that option is available too. >> by the same token, people who might be liberals or conservatives do at least have an enemy that they can identify with, which was not really possible in the age of walter cronkite, with one solo voice of television mainstream journalism. >> they have enemies, they just were not on television. when you think about it, consider walter cronkite, known to many in the day as uncle walter.

it would be ludicrous to call any news anchor a relative today and it would be even more ludicrous and incredibly arrogant to endeavour newscast with the phrase "and that's the way it is." can you imagine anybody trying to get away with that presumptuous? ? yet it was his son off and everybody believed it and everybody craved the comfort of that dinnertime slice of consensus reality. >> cable tv, do you think it ended that kind of comfort? >> thought initially. -- not initially. the more media sources you have dividing up the audience, the smaller the public square becomes, the less consensus. but you are exchanging that comfort for the comfort of knowing that there are other

people like you in the world who care about the things you care about. i am always in favor of more speech rather than less. even though everything has a side effect that is unintended. >> a lot of cities in this country, now looks like cleveland is next to be the target, of facing the prospect of having their local newspapers disappear. i think going to three days a week is the same thing as disappearing, because it's only a matter of time before they say we even need predates a week? -- do we even need three days? what will happen when there is no particular voice of a particular locale? >> study was done that found the biggest lack that the new

media era has created is local accountability, accountability for the local levels and cities. some blogs have tried to rise to the occasion during that is true in denver. and there's the texas tribune that is a database that partners with local television and everyone else. i think you'll see a lot of partnerships coming up to fill the gap eventually. the public has to value it. it is built up to the public to value all these things. everyone says you cannot monetize online. everybody is used to information for free. when i was a kid, i was used to tv for free. i was used to water for free. thingst used to pay for once you realize how much they matter to you. people love their gadgets and

they will pay for content on their gadgets, but they will not pay for necessarily on the internet. they love to have special applications on their phone that makes the consumption of information very convenient. it's another way in. there are pay wall that did not work so well before but are working better now. there were some prison diaries that said "the old world is dead and the new world is yet to be born and there is much morbidity." so, welcome to morbidity, folks. that's where we are now. >> our next question, your book devotes considerable amount of time to talk about the development of our objective reporting and the difficulties in maintaining fairness in journalism. i'm sure a number of people in

this room undoubtedly hoped to follow in your footsteps and become a journalist. i wonder if you could talk about it what you think are the major challenges they will be confronting in terms of trying to crack this serious, and biased reporting. -- unbiased. >> objective, unbiased, fair, they're all different. the objective of a journalism is to tell both sides and to tell both sides fairly, not to be invisible or to pretend to be part of an order of a passionless group. i think that we are entering a

inflectivere reflecti reporting. amazing investigative enterprises did so much to expose these amazing investigative enterprises that did so much to expose what was wrong in the country. i think that the golden age, which is a misnomer, has passed. and i think that anybody wants to be a journalist today should not try and follow days of your, working in the mail room. anybody who wants to be a journalist in the next generation needs to find something they care about, and develop expertise, and then go there and start writing about it. it.